In response to your second point, I am living between two worlds at the moment: desiring one thing but experiencing something entirely different…at least for now. My preferences would definitely be along the lines of simple, organic expressions of Christ’s body—regardless of when and where they gather—but I am also convinced that apostolic missionaries are needed worldwide and should be financially supported by their brothers and sisters in Christ. The reality, again for this point in history, is that most funding for missionaries does not come from simple churches, but rather from more traditional (some might say “institutional”) structures in the West.

I would not subscribe to the view that “missionaries” need to be seminary-trained, ordained clergy: just willing to invest their lives in another culture for the glory of God, the spread of the gospel, and the salvation of those to whom they go. But I don’t want to give away too much here, since I’ll be explaining more in my next post.

1.) When I was with Great Commission Ministries (supporter, not professionally), they had a short term missions coordinator, and I went to the Ukraine for 10 days. We taught english classes using the Bible that were used as a start-up for Bible studies after we left. I realize this is the exception to the rule, but very good things do happen w/ some STMT.

2.) I have a question, and it isn’t meant to be aggressive or mean. I am confused as to why you want to have simple/house churches run primarily by non-professional locals, but the “traditional” model for missionaries. While these two positions are not contradictory, I would like to trouble you for an explanation of how they fit together for you.

Cheers, Tom